Why I support policies, not people

I've been asked, yet again, who I support in the upcoming elections. It was not lost on me that the only election this person cared about was the presidential election, which the people do not vote in, but that's not my point. Once again, my response of, no one, garnered a somewhat, we'll call it an explosive response. Yet, we have in the recent news cycle, multiple examples of exactly why I support policies and not people. Hello there, everyday Americans.

Paul Engel, here with the Constitution Study, where we read and study the Constitution, teach rising generation to be free. I'm so glad you could join me today. You know, they come in waves, right? People come up, and of course, it's that time of year. Who do you support?

And I find it very interesting that so many people seem to be focused on a single election with one that the people don't actually vote in, but that's something else. No, it really seems to bother some people when I say, I do not support anyone in the election. They get all bent out of shape. I've got to pick the donkey or the elephant, don't I? I don't support them.

Now, here's the important point, and I want to make sure you understand this right from the beginning. I do not support people. I do not endorse people. I do not support candidates. I support policies, and I do so for a very simple reason.

There is not a human being on this planet that I agree with 100%. There isn't. We're all going to disagree about something, but you see, if I support an individual, there is an expectation. In fact, I'm almost compelled to support everything they say, everything they do, every position they hold. It's almost like I lose something if I don't support them, which is why, guess what?

I don't.

I don't care who it is. There's not a single candidate that agrees. I'm going to agree with 100%. There's not a party. I agree with 100%.

And I want to give you a perfect example. I was listening to a podcast this morning, and they were talking about how all the pro-lifers have become upset with the Republican National Committee. The elephants, right?

Apparently, they've changed their platform. Goes to show how much I pay attention. I don't even pay attention to their platform. I really do not care. But they've done so.

They've changed their platform on abortion to kind of follow more where Donald Trump is. Now, I've seen a lot of people make a lot of about Donald Trump's position. Is he pro-life? Is he pro-choice? I know there was a time when he seemed to be much more pro-choice.

He's somewhat pro-life, I would say.

And they're complaining because the party has gone from trying to get rid of abortion to simply saying, hey, we got rid of Roe. That's good enough. It's now to the states and everything's cool.

So let me tell you my position. These are the policies that I support.

Do I believe Roe v. Wade was awful? It was poorly decided. It was not based on the Constitution. It really had to go.

And because the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate medical care, any medical care, none whatsoever, not a power delegated to the United States, whether that be abortion or COVID or the sniffles. However, I see a problem with the Constitution, with a lot of these state policies, because the 14th Amendment says a state cannot make a law depriving someone of a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This is where we run into a problem with this, you know, every state makes up their own mind scenario. See, the problem is, what is a person? So I went to the free legal dictionary and I looked up person, and it says, in general usage, a human being.

By statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, and trustees in bankruptcy or receivers. In other words, there are organic persons, human beings, and there are artificial persons, corporations, and other organizations. So I went next to the Webster's 1828 dictionary, my personal favorite, and I looked up person. It says an individual human being consisting of body and soul. So obviously, what we're dealing with when we're dealing with a person, we're dealing with a human being.

The question is, we talk about life, can a human being be deprived of life without due process of law?

And that's where I have a problem with so many of these states that are promoting.

abortion because they don't, they're not following due process when it comes to the person in the womb. Now, someone's going, well, you know, it starts out as just a clump of cells. Guess what? Every human being started out as just a clump of cells.

Every human being that exists, it is a human being. You check its DNA, it is a human being. It is distinct and separate from the mother. Although it is dependent on the mother for its life, it is a different human being. And that's my position.

That's my policy, is, okay, if you're going to deprive this person in the womb of their life, then there must be due process, a process designed to protect the rights of that individual. It's why, when I say, okay, if the mother's life is in danger, if the pregnancy threatens, directly, threatens the life of the mother, then terminating that life is proper. As long as there's a process that identifies, yes, the mother is ill or injured in an accident and requires surgery or some medical treatment that would terminate the pregnancy, but she needs it to live, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. I don't like it.

We live in a fallen world, but that's at least constitutional.

When they say, well, let's say the baby has become toxic to the mother. It may not kill her, but it's seriously injuring her physically. Or she needs a treatment where, again, I'm not a doctor, but maybe she's got some sort of cancer and she needs a chemo treatment to defeat the cancer before it takes over her body. and that chemo would kill the child. I understand.

It's a horrible fact of reality, but at least there's some due process. I understand that. It's one of the reasons why I do not understand the desire to kill a child, because it happens to be the product of rape or incest, because the child is guiltless. The child has done nothing wrong.

Yes, okay, the child is a product of what somebody else did, but that's my position. So, getting back to where we started, when the RNC changes their platform when it comes to abortion, it doesn't bother me because I didn't tie myself to the Republican Party. I don't have to support everything they do. When they get it wrong, they get it wrong, and I'm free enough to tell them so. So when Donald Trump nominated and eventually appointed Supreme Court justices, that looked at the Constitution and said, yeah, you know what, the Constitution is important and abortion is not a power delegated to the United States, I supported the policy of Donald Trump.

I didn't support him as a pro-life activist. when he showed up at the March for Life. I had no problem with that. It doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to take advice from him. It doesn't mean I'm going to support every policy he has regarding abortion.

It doesn't.

I mean, sure, it may be quicker and easier for me to just simply say, I'm a this or I'm a that, but that keeps putting people in boxes.

And I think we've gone way overboard in saying, we don't see people as individuals anymore, do we? We see them as what group they're a part of.

And imagine you were a diehard pro-life activist and you supported the RNC because you looked at their platform and said, yes, that's a pro-life platform. Now you have a choice. Do you not support the RNC anymore?

Do you modify your position so that you can continue to support the RNC?

What about Donald Trump? Do you not support Donald Trump anymore? Do you modify your position because you support Donald Trump and you have to agree with whatever he says?

That, to me, is the danger. And listen, I only came to this realization a few years ago. It's not like I've lived my life understanding it. It really came to when I realized that if I place my support behind an individual or an organization to the point that I have to modify my position based on their standards, their positions, then I've sold myself.

I've enslaved myself to their ideas.

You know, the very first president I voted for was Ronald Reagan. It was his second term. I was not quite old enough to vote for him for his first term. I was just a little bit too young, a couple of years too young. So I voted for him in his second term.

Doesn't mean I agree with everything he did. I loved Ronald Reagan. I used to watch videos. You know, some of his humor is amazing. If you like Ronald Reagan, I suggest you pick up, I have a DVD set.

It's called Reagan in His Own Words. And what it is, is recordings of his little radio programs. He used to do these little, I think there were three minute radio spots he would do, interspersed with people talking about how he built them and how he did things. If you like Reagan, I highly recommend it. It's a great listen.

But I don't agree with everything he said. I don't support everything Ronald Reagan did.

Same way. I don't disagree with everything Joe Biden does. Imagine being in a situation where you have to look at a good deed and make it into a bad light, because the person who did it, you hate.

Kind of sounds like Trump derangement syndrome, which means on the other side, there's some Biden derangement syndrome as well.

Now, whether you agree, whether you like Biden or not, whether you like Trump or not, the point is, there's nobody that I think we're all going to 100% agree with. But when we sell ourselves to support an organization, a group, we literally sell our freedom. Our ability to choose now becomes clouded by somebody else's idea.

We've sold ourselves into a form of indentured servitude. We're going to serve them, whether we agree with them or not, because it becomes very difficult. It becomes, in many cases, very painful to disagree with someone, to disagree with the position, if you truly support them, if you're not independent enough to support the policy, not the individual. Now, listen, you can do what you want. I'm not saying you can't.

I'm saying I don't, and this is why. It leaves me a lot freer to... It actually reminds me of a strange time in my life. I was a much younger man. I was working.

I had a contract. I was working for a company that subcontracted to a Fortune 100 company, and I got tired of the shenanigans my employer was following, and I found another job, and I put in my two-week notice. And for those two weeks, the customer, not the company I worked for, the customer kept trying to hire me. They wanted me to work directly for them. They liked the work that I did, and I was in this unique situation of going to interviews.

I had absolutely no skin in the game. If they offered me something great, I would have accepted it, but I didn't. I wasn't dependent. I wasn't begging for a position. I was free.

I was free to choose my own path. I was free to make up my own mind, and I was also free to tell them what I honestly thought, because I wasn't trying to suck up to them to get a job. It was a very interesting time in my life, kind of like today. I don't have to worry about... I tell people.

I've spoken several times at the local Republican committee, and I told the guy right from the beginning, the head of it, right from the beginning. He says, I don't follow the donkeys. I don't follow the elephants. Pox on both their houses. I hate political parties, but I'll come in here, and I'll tell you the truth as I can best understand it and best articulate it.

He thought that was a great idea. I've spoken there a few times. We've done some things together. That's great, because we were focusing on policies, not organizations, and certainly not people, not individuals. Now, I have to take a break coming up here.

Before I go, though, you know, again, it's still summertime. If you're looking for some summer reading, I'd ask you to check out the Constitution Study Shop, constitutionstudy.com.shop. In fact, I'm recommending the Constitution Study book. Why? When I first sat down to write this book, I was studying the Constitution clause by clause, the Declaration and the Constitution.

I did it clause by clause, and then I wrote it in my own words. Notice, I would quote it, but then I'd explain it in my own words. How I best learn is to take a concept, digest it, and then reiterate it in my own terms. That's how it locks into my head, and that's what I wrote. It's plain conversational English, and it's designed both to be used as a study guide, right, so you can go through it almost like you're taking a class, but also as a reference book, so you can go back and find a topic and read about it.

It's really meant to engage people in thoughts and discussions, and I think we could use a lot of that, especially as we're coming through the summer season and we are looking in the fall at an election season. I think it's worth your time. So again, head to constitutionstudy.com.shop. Find the book, The Constitution Study. It's a great read.

At least, not just my opinion. This is what a lot of people told me, so I think it's worth your time. Now, the other thing that's important, you know, when you ever get a summer cold, they're really nasty and obnoxious. Thankfully, I don't get sick very much anymore, even though I travel, because I've found a way to support my immune system, a way to combine over a dozen immune supplements in a single Traverde gel pack. It's Healthy Cells Immune Super Boost.

I use it, especially when I travel. I throw it in my bag, and once a day, I take one packet. You can take it directly. You can mix it in a drink. You can find out more by going to americaoutloud.shop and looking for the Immune Super Boost panel.

Find it. Get the details. Check it out. If you decide to try it, I want you to use the code OUTLOUD. when you check out at Healthy Cell.

You'll get 25% off your first order of not just Immune Super Boost, but anything from Healthy Cell, if you use that code OUTLOUD. By doing so, you not only let them know that you listen to America Out Loud, but you'll get 25% off your very first order.

Maintaining a strong immune system has never been more critical. Nutrition company Healthy Cell created Immune Super Boost to help you strengthen your immunity, unlike other supplements that don't work. Immune Super Boost is not a pill. It's a gel you swallow with ultra-absorption of science-backed nutrients proven to support immunity, like vitamin C, D3, zinc, elderberry, and echinacea. Go to HealthyCell.com and use limited time code OUTLOUD for 25% off your first order, risk-free, love it, or your money back, guaranteed.

HealthyCell.

com, code OUTLOUD.

So again, three products all work together very well in Long COVID, Post COVID Syndrome, the Immune Super Boost, Focus and Recall, and REM sleep supplement. They're three products. Go to our website, America Out Loud Talk Radio, and click on the banner for Healthy Cell to get 20% off your first order, and you'll be ordering all three of these.

They'll and I'm relying on them in my practice with great results. So go check out Healthy Cell, go to America Out Loud Talk Radio, and click on the banner bar for a discount on your first purchase. Let's get real. Let's get loud on America Out Loud Talk Radio.

I support policies. Here's a perfect example. How many of you remember when Joe Biden said he's going to build this pier to help make it easier to deliver aid to Gaza? Now, I don't care if you thought it was a good idea or a bad idea. If you supported Joe Biden and, in fact, his agenda, well, I know a lot of people that supported the pier.

I had some questions. That's my personal opinion. The point wasn't the pier. The point is, if you supported the pier because you supported Joe Biden, what are you going to do now that they're basically dismantling the pier? The pier was kind of an obvious failure.

There may have been good intentions, but hopefully we all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It was a rushed job. It was hastily built. It never actually could deal with the weather and the seas in the Mediterranean Sea that time of year, so it actually was down, I think, more than it was actually up. Even when the pier was fully operational, they wanted to be able to offload between 90 and 150 truckloads of aid off that pier each and every day.

I don't think it ever hit that number. If it did, it was only occasionally. And then, of course, like I said, it was damaged in the seas and it had to be rebuilt, and it didn't even last long. The Biden administration talked about having this up until September. Here it is July, and it's already been towed away to be dismantled.

Again, it's not a question of, you know, should we be delivering aid to the Palestinians? My point is, I look at how many people that were all gung-ho and supportive of the pier when it was proposed because they supported Joe Biden. Now, what do you do? Do you look at it and say, you know what? It wasn't a good idea.

It was a great intention, but not a good idea.

Or you say, well, you know, it was a good idea, but it didn't work out and it was somebody else's fault. It's how I see so many of the political points of view.

Again, I personally didn't think it was a great idea, but as a good intention, hey, we want to get aid to the Gazan people. I think that is someone, I don't want to say misled, but they kind of ignore the fact that Hamas is actually taking much of the aid that's supposedly going to the Palestinian people, and they've been hoarding it, and there's evidence, at least I've heard reporting of that.

So if you're concerned about Hamas terrorist attacks and you're indirectly feeding them, providing them food and aid, that may not be the best policy.

If you want to get food into the hands of the Gazan people, well, then the only, to me, the best way to do that is to actually find a way to get food directly into the hands of the people. Not into the hands of the government that you hope will give it to the people. That's, from a policy standpoint, that's my problem, and it's the problem I had with the.

peer from the beginning.

Now, of course, the other side of I have to support, if I support a person or a group, rather than a policy having to support whatever they do, if my group opposes a group or policy, I have to oppose whatever they're talking about, regardless of whether or not it makes sense. And I think that's what we're seeing a lot with this so-called hysteria over Project 2025.. Now, I admit I haven't read the whole thing, partially, because it's the policy statement from the Heritage Foundation, from a group founded by the Heritage Foundation.

I'm more interested in the policies they're going to actually put into effect, rather than this group's agenda. So to me, it's not Project 2025 that I care about. What are the individual policies they're putting together? I bet you I'm going to agree with some, and I'm going to disagree with others. But what I've seen so much already makes me wonder, because there's demonstrably false information being posed, which brings you to another issue, right?

Because a lot of this stuff, or I should say, a lot of false statements, have been made by Mark Hamill, which brings up another issue I have. Why, in heaven's name, do we pay attention to people who play make-believe when it comes to serious issues like policy?

Mark Hamill is an actor.

I enjoyed the original Star Wars. I did. As a kid, I watched him. I loved the program. Doesn't mean he knows diddly-squat about politics.

But somehow he thinks his opinion matters. And I know a lot of people that seem to have followed along with him because of what he has said. I wonder if they're still following when they find out that a lot of things that he said are demonstrably false.

And again, I'm dealing from reporting, right? So it's reports of what Mr. Hamill said and reports of the facts. Do I follow Mr. Hamill because he's a Jedi master and I loved him in Star Wars?

Or do I look at the policies and say, is this true? Is this false? And do I think this policy would be good or bad?

Because I see this in so many places, not just stars. Of course, granted, I see a lot. I joke a lot. I'm not an attorney and I don't play one on TV. Because as a boy, we'd see these commercials where actors who played doctors on television would come out and say, well, I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV.

And here's some medical advice from a guy who plays make-believe for a living.

See, I don't pay attention to the people who say, all right, yeah, great, Project 25, yay, or those who think it's the American Taliban, as I believe Mark Ruffalo described it. Because if I follow these people, I have to follow their insanity. What they say just makes no sense, isn't true. Now, listen, if you like the Project 25, you think what they're trying to push forward is a good policy, be my guest. If you think it's the return of the dark ages, hey, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

But I'm not going to follow it simply because you say so, whether you're a celebrity or a so-called expert. Because if there's one thing the last four years should have taught us, five years now, is that experts can be wrong, either intentionally, i.e., they lie, or unintentionally, i.e., they say things before they have all the facts. One of the pillars, one of the foundational statements of the Constitution Study Patriots is an expert. opinion is still only an opinion until there's proof.

Don't get sucked into somebody simply because, well, I see him on TV, or this person played a part that I really liked, and I think, you know, I don't pay attention to Hugh Laurie because he played a doctor on TV. I don't pay attention to, who was the guy that played president in the West Wing? I don't pay attention to him because he played the president. It shows you how much, I never watched the program, so I can't look at the guy's name.

We have to stop, you know, letting other people make up our minds for us. They have an opinion? Great. Can you provide some facts to support it? Okay.

If not, well, then that's just your opinion. And as I forget who said it, opinions are like backsides. Everyone has them, and they all stink. Here's another. We've been watching for, what, two, three years, as not just the politicos, but the media itself has been covering for Joe Biden's obvious declining mental capability.

Now, listen, I feel sorry for the man to see such a mental decline. I had a great aunt that had Alzheimer's, and I saw the pain that was involved, and not just for her, but for her family. Losing your mental cognition is a sad state of many people growing old, and it's sad. But because, I believe, these organizations, again, a lot of the media, the corporate media, a lot of the politicos, they hitched their wagons to Mr. Biden, they had to cover over that aspect of what was happening.

So when it became obvious, and it's been obvious, I mean, this is nothing new, but suddenly we had the debate where, well, let's just say, Biden did what Biden does. Now, suddenly everyone's turned on him.

All the media, not all the media, a lot of the media that supported him now is pointing out the man has problems.

Several members of his own party are pointing out, yeah, the man has problems. And it seems people are more interested in the politics of it than the personhood, the personality, the individual.

So you have a physician, a neurologist, based out of New York, that says, you know what, watching Biden on TV, he speculates and he's showing that he says he's exhibiting classic features of neurodegeneration.

You're not diagnosing people over the television.

Then there was the neurologist that actually visited him.

There was the Parkinson's expert that visited the White House eight times. And of course, now people say, well, does Biden have Parkinson's? I don't know.

But my point is, are we just going to now jump on because somebody said so?

You know, the White House press briefing has been, again, rather explosive lately,

because now, suddenly you have the press asking the press secretary, Kareem Jean-Pierre, about Biden's cognitive decline, asking why has a neurologist showed up? And of course, everyone's got their own spin. He showed up because, well, maybe Biden has Parkinson's. No, no, no. The White House wants to put together some sort of Parkinson's policy, and he was there advising.

Because to me, it seems all about whatever group or whatever organization. and what are you trying to promote? How about we look at the fact that here's an elderly man going through obvious mental decline, possibly with a neurological disease.

How do we get him some help?

And how do we get the country help to have the chief executive in this problem?

And I come back to, you know, the Democrats, most of the Democrats are supporting Biden. Most of the Republicans are opposing Biden.

I see it less as part of a policy, as part of the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, that George Washington warned us about in his farewell address.

See, we keep trying to put people in boxes. Biden's in this box. Trump's is in this box.

But when we do that, we're no longer unique.

We're no longer individuals. We're no longer independent. We are in effect labeled based on whatever label or group people want to put us in.

We refuse to comply.

People try to put me into a box. You know, I'm a Republican. I'm a conservative. I'm this. I'm that.

No, I'm none of those things. That's you trying to put me in a box. You know what I am? I'm an individual. I'm a person who has read and studied the Constitution.

I've read and studied the Bible. I have a history of experiences that help inform my decisions. But I am me.

I represent the Constitution because I founded it. I created this idea. I've brought this to fruition. And it's the only reason why it follows me.

I created that box to match me. Not everybody's going to agree with the Constitution study. Not everybody's going to agree with me. But I don't require unanimity of thought. That is the absence of, that's collectivism.

Put you in a collective, stamp you with a policy that you must comply with. No.

Freedom means individuality. It means we're going to be different. It means we're not going to agree on everything. And if I have to agree with everything some group says in order to be part of the group, then I'm not free. And at that point, am I really any different than the other collectivist ideas and ideologies that say you must fit or you're not allowed?

In the worst cases, you must fit or you must not be allowed to exist.

It's a question of independence. It's a question of freedom. Not simply my freedom, but my willingness, my imperative, to allow you to be free from the ideas that I would impose on you. That's why I don't support people. I support policies when those policies are constitutional and agree with my worldview and what I think is right.

But those are my ideas. Take them or leave them.

I have to head out for another break before I do. You know another place that supports some really good ideas? Patriot Mobile. They're America's only Christian conservative wireless provider. You get the same service, the same 4G and 5G coverage on all the same networks as the big carriers, but they donate money.

Patriot Mobile donates money to organizations like Turning Point USA or Susan B. Anthony, Folds of Honor.

Last year they gave over $1.

5 million to conservative causes, all with your help. Use your cell phone to stand against those that want to make America a leftist, collectivist cabal. Help make America free. Help make America independent and use your cell phone to do so. Go to www.PatriotMobile.com constitution, find a plan that works for you.

When you sign up, use the code CONSTITUTION to get free activation. Again, that's www.PatriotMobile.com constitution to find a plan that works for you and use the code CONSTITUTION to get free activation.

Many voices, one freedom, united in the First Amendment.

Our goal is to herald the voice of genuine liberty at America Out Loud dot news. A place where you'll find the naked truth expressed with a patriotic heart.

Now is our time, my fellow Americans. America Out Loud talk reading. Liberty and justice for all.

Is your gut a mess? Two-thirds of Americans suffer because of gastrointestinal issues, and I was one of them. That is why we created a three-step, doctor-formulated, completely natural gut reboot system that you can do at home in just minutes a day. Go to www.ChemicalFreeBody.com forward, slash Out Loud today, get the Malcolm Healthy Gut bundle, reboot your gut and your energy, and save 20% on your first order. I'm Dr.

James Bragman. Do you suffer from allergies, sinus problems, or just seem to be getting sick more often? You're not alone. Many of my patients are finding relief with COFIX-Rx nasal spray. I've relied on the sanitizing power of povidone iodine for years.

COFIX-Rx has harness that power to help cleanse germs, allergens, and viruses in your nasal cavity. You brush your teeth and wash your hands daily. Stay healthy by using COFIX-Rx to wash and cleanse your nose daily. Get COFIX-Rx today. Go to America Out Loud shop and click on the COFIX-Rx banner, or type in COFIXRx.com forward, slash Out Loud.

Buy now and receive a 20% discount with a 30-day money-back guarantee.

Welcome back, everybody. I'm Eric Engivory, joined the Constitution Study. I know we've been talking about why I support policies and not people, but I got a couple other news stories I want to cover today. So consider this. How many of you have read the Constitution and in there found this right to habeas corpus?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 says the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. You may have noticed that I said right when the Constitution says privilege, because if you go back to Webster's 1828 Dictionary and you read the definition of a right, it is just claim, immunity, or privilege. So you have a right to habeas corpus, which means produce the body. And it's the idea that the court can demand that generally the executives, since they're the ones that generally hold people, produce the body in court, bring the person to court.

Now, we don't hear a lot about writs of habeas corpus, but they're an important part of the law. Now, why do I bring this up? Well, I talked before about the Fisher case, where.

the Supreme Court found that Mr. Fisher had not violated Section 1512 C.2 of the United States Code on January 6,, the obstruction of an official proceeding, that that was improperly applied to Mr. Fisher. And now two other January 6 defendants, Nicholas Oaks and Nicholas DeCarlo, their attorney has filed a writ of habeas corpus, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, so that they could basically be found to dismiss those charges against these two gentlemen. Specifically, that their convictions for obstruction of official proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C.

1512 C, and that they be vacated and that they be immediately released from custody. Now, I'm not familiar with these two cases. I don't know if that's the only charge that they have against them, but it's the next step in the Fisher case. All right. So Fisher said, listen, you're overcharging for what is a law that was really meant to deal with hiding evidence, obstructing an investigation, not simply demonstrating outside of Congress and interrupting the work that they're doing.

So now we have this. And again, I want to follow this because it's the next logical step. If someone, you know, Fisher said you couldn't be charged. Now you have people who've been convicted of this crime and they have their convictions vacated because the Supreme Court said that it was an overcharging in this situation.

Again, maybe it's just me. Maybe it's just the constitutional stuff that I do. But I look at this thing as an interesting next step and probably something worth following, because I don't know how many people have been convicted. I don't know how many people are still awaiting trial for violations of 1512 C, but I know it's more than a handful. There are, I believe, several hundred people in this situation.

And I'm, again, very curious. In fact, I believe there's a gentleman out of Chicago that I know. I don't know if he's actually being charged with 1512 C. I haven't talked to him about it recently, but again, it's worth following. It's the next step.

It's that just because you won the case doesn't mean the work is over. Now the rest of the work continues. And that is finding people that were overcharged, finding people that were convicted, and then helping them, getting their convictions overturned, getting the charges dropped. And I think it's something we should still pay attention to. It shouldn't drift off into SCOTUSblog or some other obscure judicial memory, judicial annals.

I think we, the people, should still be involved in this. Make sure that the people who also would be covered under this decision get their proper day in court regarding it. And this is just the first example I've found. Okay, the other thing I want to cover is the budget.

See, according to the Treasury's monthly statement, guess what? There was a smaller than expected budget deficit in June. That means the hole they're digging us in wasn't as deep as people thought it was going to be. It was down to $66 billion, which is a fairly significant difference compared to last year. It's only about 30% of what the budget deficit was for last year.

Now, that said, that still doesn't mean this is good news. See, because while federal revenue is up to $3.75 trillion, that's about a 10% increase over last year, federal spending is up about 5% to over $5 trillion.

That means in just nine months, the federal government has spent almost $1.

3 trillion more than they took in. I don't know about you, those are not good numbers. Are they down from last year? Yeah, a little bit. But that's like saying you've only got a little bit of cancer, because already the interest payments on the debt are the third largest budgetary item.

We've spent $81 billion so far just in interest on the debt.

Now, what I find utterly amazing. as a perfect example of me supporting policies, not people, not organizations, I look at this debt as a bad thing. Our deficit is a bad thing. It is fiscally irresponsible. It is morally reprehensible.

It is constitutionally.

legitimate, but destructive. I say legitimate, because Congress does have the power to borrow on our name. The problem is most of the money they're spending, they're not constitutionally authorized to spend. This is a fat, ugly mess. But the problem is, when Democrats are in the charge, Republicans complain about the debt.

When Republicans are in charge, Democrats complain about the debt. That, to me, is supporting parties, not policies.

Their policy isn't. the debt is bad, therefore, we must do something about the debt. Their policy appears to be. the debt is bad, when we can use it against our political opponents.

We heard the Republicans saying debt is not an issue. Under George W. Bush, debt was not an issue, not for the Republicans.

Under Clinton, under Obama, under Biden, debt's an issue.

Even under Trump, we didn't hear much about debt being an issue. I don't remember that much in the last year or so, when the Trump administration was spending money left, right, and center, when the deficit really shot up at the end of the Trump administration. But I want to remind you, it wasn't Biden, it wasn't Trump, it wasn't Obama, it wasn't Bush, it wasn't Clinton. It's Congress that spends this money.

Get away from the party. It's not the party that's deciding it. It's your representative in the House. It's your state's representative in the Senate. They're the ones that are spending all this money.

They're the ones that, for decades, have not been able to pass a budget, that have avoided the regular spending bills, that have used these omnibus bills to simply pile on the debt, and it's you and I, and all the rest of the American people that are paying the bill.

You see how dangerous and damaging, if you're going to support debt when your party's in control, but not when your opponent's party is in control, we end up with an ever-increasing debt. It just happens and no one does anything about it, because it's become, I have to support my political party, not, I have to support what is right. So that's why I don't support Trump. I don't support Biden. I don't support the donkeys or the elephants.

In fact, the pox on their political party's houses. I don't because they're going to let me down. Trump made decisions that were blatantly unconstitutional. Trump passed the bump stock ban. Trump thought that Mike Pence could simply make up the election for him, that he could simply disregard votes that he didn't like.

I thought he got some very bad advice, but he still went forward and did it.

If you had a lawyer say that Pence could do that, he still went forward. It was not the lawyer that took the oath to support the Constitution. It was Donald J. Trump.

They just, Trump and Biden are both going to disappoint me. It's why I don't support them. When they have policies that are constitutional, I'll say so. When they have policies that are constitutional and I agree with, I'll support the policies. I supported Trump when he moved the U.S.

Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I supported Trump when he said, when he told the executive agencies, before you pass a new regulation, you have to get rid of, what was it, two, three? I forgot what it was. I supported that policy, but I don't support the man.

Now, maybe people get offended. I know several people get offended at that. Too bad. I've explained why here. See, I am free.

I am unique. I am an individual. I'm not going to hitch my wagon to someone else and give up control of what I support and what I don't support.

I know it confuses a lot of people. I get a lot of questions, but that's what I do. I've spent some time today explaining why I do this.

I heard an interesting term the other day.

They say, well, you got to choose the lesser of two evils. You got to walk into the ballot box and choose the lesser of two evils. I always hated that, because when you choose the lesser of two evils, you get evil. But I heard someone describe it differently, and I like it. I think I'm going to hold on to this one.

What you want to choose is less evil.

You're not choosing the lesser of two evils. You're choosing the lessening of evil.

Who has the policies that will lessen the evil? And that's how I go in and decide. Because there's not one candidate on there. I'm going to agree with 100%. So I'm going to go and I'm going to look, and I want to find out what they've said.

More importantly, I want to find out what they do. My first test is, did they fulfill their oath to support the Constitution when they held office? My second is, do the policies you support, either that you have evidence you've supported, preferably that you have evidence you've supported, but if not, at least the ones you claim to support, do they lessen evil or do they increase evil? Put another way, do they increase freedom and liberty? or do they lessen freedom or liberty?

Do they lead toward independence or dependence?

Since I know I'm not going to agree with this person 100%, if I look at their policies, the policies they've enacted, the policies they've followed, not simply what they say, not political platforms, what have you done? If they lead to less evil, if they lead to more independence, then they're the person I'm going to vote for. I'm not going to support them. I'm not placing my name behind them. But when I'm in the ballot box, they're by my lonesome.

That's the person I'm going to vote for. I want the Constitution followed. I want our people to be free. And I want to be brave enough to make the hard choices that say it may not be popular, but it's the choice that leads to the lessening of evil. And I don't think you can do that if you've supported a person or a party.

I think you can only do that if you support policies, specific policies that lead toward freedom and independence. Now, I'm sure there are people out there who disagree with me. Fine. We live in a free country. You don't have to agree with me, just like I don't have to agree with you.

If you agree with some of the policy statements I make, some of the positions I hold, at least if you disagree, if you want to try to convince me, at least do so with evidence. Facts and data are what will change my mind, not explosive rants, not diatribes, not claims based simply because you say so.

And that's how I look to the future. I hope some of you will join me, or at least consider it. Give it a try. I know not everyone will. That's the beauty of freedom and liberty.

It's the beauty of freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

It's the freedom to disagree without being disagreeable.

Now, I hope you'll stop by americoutloud.

news to get the information that may help change your mind about some things or reinforce some ideas that you have. Find the stories, the articles, the podcasts, and the videos. Listen to both sides of the story, and then take the ones you think are important and share them. Share that information. Share that knowledge.

We talk about the blessings of liberty. Well, they need to be exercised. It's like a muscle. If you don't exercise it, it atrophies. And sadly, we have a lot of freedom that's atrophied in this country.

Hopefully, you'll also come by and check out the Constitution Study every weekday at 4 p.

m. Eastern Time on America Out Loud Talk, Radio Heard on the iHeart Radio Network. You can also listen on podcasts in your favorite podcast app. But do me a favor, subscribe to the show and leave us ratings. It helps other people find the Constitution Study as well.

You can also find those links at americoutloud.

news. You'll find them right on the homepage. But when you take this information, when you take the links, when you take the show, when you take the stories, they are resources. They are tools. If we wish to enjoy the blessings of liberty, if we wish to exercise the blessings of liberty, we must be willing to discover the blessings of liberty and then share the blessings of liberty.

If we want to live free, we need to let others live free as well. And if we want to convince them that we are right, the best way to do it is to find this evidence and share it with them. From sea to shining sea.